Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: gbcdoj

The passage you have cited is a gross misrepresentation of the key point I was making. The priests he was addressing had not invented any peculiar spiritual or liturgical practices. They celebrated the ancient Mass which had been handed-down to them from the Church. Everything they do and study was the tradition of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH until a few years ago. There is nothing that they do or teach or think that is other that what the Church had inspired for two thousand years up until recently when the Apostolic See itself chose to abandon Catholic Tradition. That is what is so alarming. It is the CHURCH'S OWN TRADITION, not a special charism peculiar to these priests, of which the Pope was speaking! The Pope dealt with this, however, as if it were something alien to him--and I can understand why. It would be--to a modernist.

For a long while I imagined it was the modernists who have held the Pontiff back all these years and prevented him from doing what I told myself he surely wanted to do--bring the Church back to Sacred Tradition. But now I see it is the other way around. It is the mass of traditionalists who hold him back--otherwise he would have lurched even more to the left than he has done already. He has already rejected the SSPX--though the Society's bishops made clear they did not challenge his legitimacy and would have obeyed--if it were possible for them, if obeying would not violate their consciences as Catholics and make them complicit in the destruction of Tradition. But he charged them with schism anyway--though no schism existed. It makes perfect sense that he should have done this to no others--but FAVORS the radical prelates instead, elevates them and gives them red hats. All this also explains why he says one thing and does another. He gives the faithful who long for a return to normalcy what it expects in writing, all the while moving the Church leftwards in practice.


67 posted on 06/19/2004 10:19:53 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: ultima ratio

JP II has granted to all of the FSSP's priests a universal "indult" to "celebrate" the Novus Ordo, anywhere, anytime, with permission required from no one: no superiors nor bishops need give their approval. A FSSP priest could offer nothing but the Novus Ordo Mass for the rest of his life, and be in good standing with JP II.

However, any Novus Ordo priest who wishes to offer the Tridentine Mass is at the mercy of his bishop.

It is obvious that JP II favors the Novus Mass and the continued supression of the Traditional Latin Mass, the Mass of All Time.


68 posted on 06/19/2004 11:08:47 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: ultima ratio
There is nothing that they do or teach or think that is other that what the Church had inspired for two thousand years up
[Bishop Rifan:] Opposition towards the Holy See is each time more hard and more radical.  Bishop Williamson has written that we should not offer public or official veneration to St. Padre Pio, in order not to give any credit to the canonizations made by the Pope.  And Fr. Peter Scott, the rector in Australia, in his public letter of Nov. 1st 2002, wrote to friends and benefactors about the Luminous Mysteries proposed by the Pope: "I ask of you, if you wish to remain Catholic and if you wish to have a truly supernatural interior life, to not eve think of praying these mysteries."

In line with this directive, the most logical ones arrive at sedevacantism, like Fr. Basilo Meramo, prior of the SSPX in Bogota, who wrote: "The Pope, with his errors and his heresies, and with all manner of doctrinal and governing action, does not give the guarantee of being the legitimate successor of the Chair of Peter..." (La Nef, May 6 2003)

The magazine Guarde a Fe has published an article whose contents are alien to the Catholic faith; in this article, it is stated that today it is the Society of St. Pius X which posseses the essential and characteristic elements of the Church (unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity), and that what is called the official Church has lost these elements. What is the difference between the official Church and the visible Church?

The logical consequence of this article is that the Church of Our Lord has either ceased to exist, or it has been reduced to the Society of St. Pius X. But this has never been, and cannot be, Catholic doctrine. (Letter of the Apostolic Administration St. Jean-Marie Vianney, April 2003)

He has already rejected the SSPX

No, the SSPX rejected him.

complicit in the destruction of Tradition

I agree. Certainly regularizing the Society, giving them the approval of the Apostolic See, and consecrating a bishop for them would destroy Tradition. No wonder the Society had to refuse obedience to this evil command!

It is the CHURCH'S OWN TRADITION, not a special charism peculiar to these priests, of which the Pope was speaking!

In case you haven't noticed, the 1962 Missal is a "special charism" in the Catholic Church today, being a preceding form of the Roman Rite from the current Missal.

69 posted on 06/19/2004 11:15:24 AM PDT by gbcdoj (No one doubts ... that the holy and most blessed Peter ... lives in his successors, and judges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson